97 Responses

Key didn't know he hadn't heard - it did not register with his conscious self - at the time he was at work playing pretend and in this dress up game he was Obama - he didn't think the calls and communications were real - in his mind it was new friends from the Diplomatic Protection Squad and others jioning in the game.

Key is busy sorting out the plumbing on Planet Key - as he really really needs to go to the tiolet - this is why he will comment no further.

It is hard not to be a dick when the standard and calibre of the government is as low as it is at present.

Anyway, I'm wondering where GCSB stand if they persuade an ISP, telco or social network operator to "voluntarily" provide them with a feed. Could they argue that this isn't interception? Or that interception only occurs if they analyse and disseminate the data - before that (including dumping the data in an Echelon type system), it's just technical processing.

(And since they work in secret, they only have to convince themselves that they have that right).

You might also want to look at Section 216C, which makes it an offence to disclose a private communication intercepted in violation of 216B. "Poison fruit of a poison tree" may actually have teeth here.

The political angle is of interest too. When did the Prime Minister know, or more likely for backside covering purposes, not know! what the GCSB was up to. The legal detail will be vital in the end of course.

With Echelon and Waihopai etc there are squllions of bits and bobs transferred to the yanks no doubt quite smoothly but the NZ spooks still seem to have a public reputation as bunglers persisting from the “pie and Penthouse” lost briefcase to the punctured dome and now this. In movies black ops stay ‘on the bus’ so it is quite amazing that this has come to light at all. But I guess we should be thankful that such legal niceties can be taken reasonably seriously in our country.

Kiwis once marched in the streets opposing the SIS ammendment bill, but last year hardly a whimper apart from blogs as many government agencies acquired all sorts of major surveilling powers.

which makes it an offence to disclose a private communication intercepted in violation of 216B. “Poison fruit of a poison tree” may actually have teeth here.

Only with knowledge. That was a pretty big factor in aspects of the Bradley Ambrose case.

It also prohibits disclosure of the existence of such a private communication. Which, I suspect, is why Key was told to wait until the Crown memorandum was filed with the High Court. Key wasn’t disclosing anything, as it was already in the public arena.

I notice Stuff is referring to 'bugging' which is a bit confusing. Given the PM said it didn't require a warrant [I read 'wouldn't have if he wasn't a national', but who knows with John Key] I assume it didn't involve placing a device.

And: based on the press conference JK didn't know this had come up through the court case. I can't help thinking that omission will be worse for the GCSB from his point of view than the original offence.

Paul Buchanan just told Radio NZ in a lengthy interview that the FBI's partner agency here is the NZ Police, through which any requests for GCSB involvement would have come. There is no direct relationship. Guess where the problem probably lies?

someone in the GCSB did something illegal. Who and what is no publicly clear

Minor typo there but I think "what was done" is reasonably clear. About 2 months ago (not sure of the date) the police were being questioned about the details of the raid by one of Dotcom's lawyers. At one point the policeman said "we knew who was at the mansion" or words to that effect. There was a distinct pause and the lawyer asked "how did they know?" at which point the policeman said he could not disclose that. At that point it was pretty clear he realised he had said something he should not have.

My interpretation of it at the time was that they had surveillence of some kind in the house before the raid.

Given the Dotcom mansion almost certainly has numerous cameras itself for security and given they are all probably continuously downloading to off-site storage it seem probable that interception of that data feed is what was being used by the police to ascertain who was or was not in the mansion.

Buchanan also noted it was extraordinary for the PM to make public that an investigation would be conducted, and speculated that the opposition may have been leaked details they were about to release.

We've known of other ones, so I can't say that that it's that extraordinary.

As I note above, anyone releasing information about this interception, knowing it was illegally detained, is breaking the law.

I am entirely confident that the reason Key announced this was that the Crown Law Office had not long filed a memo with the High Court, a copy of which was given to Kim Dotcom. The opposition wouldn't have leaked it so much as the person whose information was illegally intercepted would have gone on twitter or Campbell Live and announced it.

And even if he hadn't, the media reporting tomorrow's High Court hearing would have let us know after it had come up.

If any of this happened between 7 February 2011 and 1 July 2011, it would draw Sir Jerry Mateparae into the investigation. What would be the constitutional consequences of the G-G being under investigation?

Seems the govt tried to tidy things up in August while Mr English was acting Prime Minister. Naturally he can't recall any details - and it is claimed did not tell Key who only found out last week. Honest.